I had this discussion with a guy who is now the state superintent of public education. Our discussion led to classroom visits of about 10 minutes per instructor, multiple times each semester. Evaluation criteria were: 1) Are learning objectives for the lesson clearly visible or otherwise available? 2) What percent of students were on task? 3) ... I forget the others, but there were five. (It's been about five years, but I think they included the students knowing how they were to be evaluated, and the teaching style used, e.g., lecture, group work, etc., and whether the instructor was using data to inform the approach. It came down to the standard description of leadership: vision, expectations, support, feedback)
He was pretty firm that this method would be better—he'd spent years thinking about it—but we both agreed that it required a level of intervention by the administrator that although it could reasonably be expected was unlikely. Using just the test data is the lazy way, which means it's the method most will use.
Still, I believe _some_ standardized testing is important. ... but there are two types of tests: norm testing and standards testing, and both types have their uses.
He was pretty firm that this method would be better—he'd spent years thinking about it—but we both agreed that it required a level of intervention by the administrator that although it could reasonably be expected was unlikely. Using just the test data is the lazy way, which means it's the method most will use.
Still, I believe _some_ standardized testing is important. ... but there are two types of tests: norm testing and standards testing, and both types have their uses.